From the book, Philanthropy: Voluntary Action for the Public Good, by Robert L. Payton

He who dedicates himself to the duration of his life, to the house he builds, to the dignity of mankind, dedicates himself to the earth and reaps from it the harvest which sows its seed and sustains the world again and again.

Albert Camus
The Rebel

vocation:

The action on the part of God of calling a person to exercise some special function, especially of a spiritual nature, or to fill a certain position; divine influence or guidance towards a definite (esp. religious) career; the fact of being so called or directed towards a special work in life; natural tendency to, or fitness for, such work ... 1426, "by choice & by ellecioun And also by Vocation…." (Oxford English Dictionary)

Although Max Weber spoke of "politics as a vocation," he posed a question that we can ask of ourselves in thinking about "philanthropy as a vocation:"

Do you live for philanthropy, or do you live off philanthropy?

The religious origins of the term raise another interesting point: the church as an institution is said to be "called" to its work, as individuals are called to play a special role within it.

Are nonprofit organizations different from other kinds of organizations by virtue of the causes they serve? To borrow the wonderful title of Dennis Young's book, If Not for Profit, for What?

Are you "called" to your work? Is the organization you work for "called" in some way to serve the cause it has chosen?

Mark Cuseta is addicted to baseball. It takes up the majority of his free time and just about all of his concern from March to September. It is his hobby, his desire. His love. And, as a result, his baseball organization—the Bayside Yankees—is propelled by him. The people closest to me think I'm crazy," said Cuseta, who this year probably will spend more than $8000 of his own money to finance the team. "But I'm not married and don't have any children. Some people like to go scuba diving... or take their money and buy a red Ferrari. Baseball is what I like…." (Newsday, August 8, 1984)

Mr. Cuseta lives "for" baseball; he does not live "off" it.

"The wave of the future isn't checkbook philanthropy," says Jerry C. Welsh, an American Express marketing executive, in a Wall Street Journal article (June 21, 1984) on changes in corporate philanthropy. "It's a marriage of corporate marketing and social responsibility."

Mr. Welsh seems to live neither for nor off philanthropy, but seems to derive satisfaction—and motivation—from the opportunity to serve his company's interests and the public interest at the same time.

Some people risk their health and their lives throughout their careers working in dangerous circumstances for low salaries and little recognition. The Irish priest in the South Bronx and the relief worker in Rwanda run great risks routinely; unlike the daring engineers who fight oil fires in the North Sea, or even astronauts and test pilots, those doing charitable work as a career are usually paid little or nothing extra as "hardship" or "hazard pay."

The diversity of organizational purpose reflected in Independent Sector has been commented on frequently. Less comment has been made about the great diversity of people who represent the member organizations and institutions. Too little has been done to examine the differences in motivation and style of those who are volunteers and those who are paid professionals.

Professional philanthropy can be a good job, with all the economic benefits associated with mainstream, for-profit activity. Mine was such a job, and most of those who work in corporate contributions would say the same about their salaries and other benefits. Employees of some of the endowed, independent foundations would show roughly similar patterns of compensation. Executive compensation among the larger nonprofit organizations, though not comparable to the salaries of top executives of business corporations and professional firms, is still generous by most standards. College and university presidents and some other upper-echelon administrators are sometimes provided housing and other perquisites. Medical practitioners in some specialties are probably the best paid professionals in academic life, even though their professional base is not private practice but a teaching hospital.

For many others, working in philanthropy carries with it acceptance of lower pay and lesser benefits, very little firm economic security, and less attractive working conditions. (Less than what? Less than those of most people working in for-profit and public sectors doing work of equivalent expertise and responsibility.)

Three editors fired by consumer advocate Ralph Nader's organization have filed charges of unfair labor practices against him, claiming he fired them primarily for trying to form a union.... Nader says he sees no reason for union activity within his or similar organizations. "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause' organizations any more than ... within a monastery…." (Washington Post National Weekly, July 9, 1984)

In 1983, there was a record-long strike of employees of nonprofit hospitals in New York, institutions that are presumably outside the category mentioned by Nader of "small, nonprofit 'cause' organizations." There have also been strikes of hospital workers in voluntary hospitals, including those assigned to emergency room duty.

What are the "worker rights" of those employed in the nonprofit, voluntary sector? Do some "causes" have special claim on employees that is greater than that expected of people in other areas and organizations within the sector?

The public assumption would seem to me to be that people who are employed in the independent sector—on the "donee" side, at least—are expected to "make some sacrifice" for their work. They are expected to be less well rewarded than people in the private sector because they are expected to live for philanthropy even if in some sense they live off it.

Such professionals are assumed to benefit in important if intangible ways. College professors are thought to derive important personal satisfaction from the work itself, as artists and clergy are expected to do. There are also thought to be other benefits such as greater professional autonomy, and a more relaxed and pleasant way of life. There is the social esteem that comes from such careers, from being a bit different and implicitly a bit morally superior to others whose objectives and satisfactions are measured solely in material terms.

And there is the satisfaction that is assumed to come from service to the cause, from doing something important for others.

If there are discernible trends in all this, they include the rise of the importance of nonmaterial rewards in private and public sector work; this reflects to some extent the decline of public esteem for those in the independent sector. That factor, in turn, increases the importance of material rewards in the independent sector.

I believe the struggle for self-fulfillment in today's world is the leading edge of a genuine cultural revolution. It is moving our industrial civilization toward a new phase of human experience.... (p. xx)

On traditional demands for material well-being, seekers of self-fulfillment now impose new demands for intangibles—creativity, leisure, pleasure, participation, community, adventure, vitality, stimulation, tender loving care. To the efficiency of technological society they wish to add joy of living. They seek to satisfy both the body and the spirit, which is asking a great deal from the human condition. (p. 10)

Daniel Yankelovich, who wrote the lines just quoted in his book, The New Rules, proposes "an ethic of commitment." Max Weber, in Politics as a Vocation, spoke of "an ethic of ultimate ends" and "an ethic of responsibility."

"An ethic of ultimate ends" raises the question of using any means at all to achieve the goal; the "ethic of responsibility" raises the question of putting procedure before purpose. The "ethic of commitment" seems much closer to the ethic of responsibility: "The commitment may be to people, institutions, objects, beliefs, ideas, places, nature, projects, experiences, adventures and callings…." It moves toward "closer and deeper personal relationships" and toward "sacred/expressive" values before instrumental ones.

The well known longitudinal study of American "lifestyles" by Arnold Mitchell, published under the title The Nine American Lifestyles, suggests a modest change rather than a cultural revolution. It puts the bulk of the American people in two categories, "Belongers" and "Achievers," both of which are committed to the system as it is without radical change. Those most concerned with social issue—the Societally Conscious—are a small fraction (eight percent of the adult population), and the most mature, best balanced group, the "Integrateds," represent only two percent. Achievers seem to be those who set the national style, if it makes sense to say there is such a thing. This group represents "the driving and driven people who have 'built' the system and are now at the helm ... they are a diverse, gifted, hard-working, self reliant, successful, and happy group." Some of these people, along with the narrowly focused members of the Societally Conscious group, move toward the greater maturity of the so-called Integrateds. This group, small as it is, is growing, and in the author's opinion "a major surge in numbers is possible" in the 1990s "as impressive models of Integrated individuals surface, spurring the conscious switch-over of many people on the brink of that critical psychological advance" (p. 221).

These samplings of the abundant literature on American values and habits are important to the independent sector. American lifestyles have much to say about the propensity to contribute money and service voluntarily in the public interest. Yankelovich concludes that our society has moved from an "ethic of self-denial" to something that combines a far greater tolerance of diversity and places a much higher value on personal expression and enjoyment.